SANTLAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. ITO-2(1)2, AGRA

Perused the records and heard Ld. Representative for the appellant assessee and Ld. CIT (DR) for the respondent revenue. 3. At the very outset, learned representative for the appellant assessee has pressed the delay condonation application and submitted that this second appeal was filed on 11.02.2026 against the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 by a delay of 42 days. The delay was caused due to illness and hospitalization of the father of appellant’s counsel. The application is supported with affidavit filed on behalf of Shruti Agarwal, Director of assessee company. The caused shown in delay condonation application supported with uncontroverted affidavit is deemed to be sufficient. We, accordingly, condone the delay caused in filing this second appeal. 4. Ld. Representative for the appellant assessee has further submitted that learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing assessee’s appeal in limin by rejecting assessee’s prayer for the condonation of the delay of 105 days caused in filing first appeal, despite bonafide cause of family dispute and consolidation of group companies. Prayed to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for deciding a fresh on merit after condoning the delay caused in filing first appeal before learned CIT(A). 5. Ld. CIT(DR) for the respondent revenue supported the impugned order.

We notice that the assessee prayed before Ld. CIT(A) for the condonation of delay caused in filing first appeal on the ground that the delay was caused due to family dispute and consolidation of group companies. The limitation period for filing an appeal before learned CIT(A) u/s. 249(2) of the Act is 30 days. However, section 249(3) of the Act empowers the first appellate authority to condone the delay if satisfied that appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. Learned CIT(A) was, however not satisfied to condone the said delay of 105 days. It is well established principle of law that the substantial justice cannot be denied on technical aberrations. The object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversial justice system like ours, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Any interpretation which eludes or frustrates the recipient of justice, is not to be followed. The provisions relating to the condonation of delay, need to be interpreted liberally. The object of prescribing the time period for filing of the appeal, is to expedite the proceedings before the concerned authorities and to advance the cause of justice. In view of the explanation submitted by the assessee, we, deem it just and proper to condone the said delay of 105 days caused in filing first appeal before ld. CIT(A). We order accordingly. 3 | P a g e

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. The impugned order dated 29.10.2025 is set aside. The delay caused in filing the first appeal before first appellant authority i.e. learned CIT(A) stands condoned. We restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for passing order afresh on merit in accordance with law. Needless to say that the first appellant authority shall ensure the substantial compliance of the principles of natural justice. Order pronounced on 21.04.2026